Shahrul Pitri Bin Jusoh v Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

a-05m-263-08-2020 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 13 September 2023 • A-05(M)-263-08/2020

Catchwords

Murder- Appellant had consumed any drugs prior to the incident- amount of this active ingredient however was so small that it would not have any effect to the behavior of a person.- although SP17 did not see the Appellant cause the injuries to the second and third deceased, the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly indicated that it was the Appellant who inflicted the fatal injuries on them-parang and the hands of the Appellant had blood on them- unchallenged evidence that the Appellant was in physical possession of the parang throughout right up to his arrest and the conduct of the Appellant before he entered the house such as breaking the front door with the parang as being relevant of the fact that it was the Appellant and no one else who had inflicted the injuries- forensic evidence also pointed to the presence of SP17's DNA on the parang (P93B) and the sheath (P94A).The DNA of the first deceased was found on the shirt (P95A) worn by the Appellant. The DNA of SP17 and the first deceased were also found on a part of the Appellant’s jeans (P96A)- injuries on all the three deceased were at the vital parts of the body- words used by the Appellant- HCJ stated that he could not find any evidence at the end of the prosecution case to indicate that the Appellant was insane due to intoxication at the time of the offence - Appellant was fit to plead and that the accused was sane at the time of the commission of the offences and that he knew the consequences of his actions and could know what he was doing was wrong and against the law- Appellant never experienced any psychotic phenomena- even if these drugs were detected in the blood of the Appellant, which in this case none were, that would not be a determinant factor that he was in a state of intoxication- cumulative effect of the Appellant’s conduct prior to, during and after the incidents points to him knowing the nature of his actions and that it was wrong- Appellant did not experience any substance induced disorder and did not experience hallucinations or delusions in relation to substance abuse- defence of grave and sudden provocation is not available to the Appellant in the circumstances of this case as there was no evidence that the provocation was "grave and sudden"- death penalty should be set aside and replaced with a term of imprisonment of 30 to 40 years following the amendment pursuant to the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 202-declined to exercise our discretion in light of the fact that the lives of 3 young children have been cruelly cut short by the viscous and savage act of the Appellant- the lives of 3 innocent children were extinguished in such a cruel fashion.

Practice Areas

Murder- Appellant had consumed any drugs prior to the incident- amount of this active ingredient however was so small that it would not have any effect to the behavior of a person.- although SP17 did not see the Appellant cause the injuries to the second and third deceased, the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly indicated that it was the Appellant who inflicted the fatal injuries on them-parang and the hands of the Appellant had blood on them- unchallenged evidence that the Appellant was in physical possession of the parang throughout right up to his arrest and the conduct of the Appellant before he entered the house such as breaking the front door with the parang as being relevant of the fact that it was the Appellant and no one else who had inflicted the injuries- forensic evidence also pointed to the presence of SP17's DNA on the parang (P93B) and the sheath (P94A).The DNA of the first deceased was found on the shirt (P95A) worn by the Appellant. The DNA of SP17 and the first deceased were also found on a part of the Appellant’s jeans (P96A)- injuries on all the three deceased were at the vital parts of the body- words used by the Appellant- HCJ stated that he could not find any evidence at the end of the prosecution case to indicate that the Appellant was insane due to intoxication at the time of the offence

Judges (3)

Azmi bin Ariffin Coram Collin Lawrence Sequerah Coram Seri Vazeer Alam bin Mydin Meera Delivered

Parties (2)

Pendakwa Raya Respondent Shahrul Pitri bin Jusoh Appellant

Case Significance

Shahrul Pitri Bin Jusoh v Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabata... is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated September 13, 2023 (citation: a-05m-263-08-2020). The panel comprised Azmi bin Ariffin, Collin Lawrence Sequerah and Seri Vazeer Alam bin Mydin Meera, with Seri Vazeer Alam bin Mydin Meera delivering the judgment.

What was the outcome of Shahrul Pitri Bin Jusoh v Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabata...?

Shahrul Pitri Bin Jusoh v Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabata... is a Court of Appeal decision dated September 13, 2023. The case was heard by Azmi bin Ariffin. See the full judgment for details.